Back
1937 Supreme(Mad) 416
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Lakshmana Rao, J.
The Public Prosecutor
Versus
Srinivasa Rao and Anr.
Decided On : 03.12.1937
The supply of sample to the Sanitary Inspector under Section 14 of the Act does not constitute a sale under Section 5(1)(d) and Rules 24, 28, 29 of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act.
Headnote:
Adulteration - Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act - Interpretation of Section 5(1)(d) and Rules 24, 28, 29
Fact of the Case:
The accused, Secretary and Accountant of a cooperative society, were prosecuted for selling adulterated butter to a Sanitary Inspector. The trial court convicted them, but the appellate court acquitted them based on the interpretation of the law.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court found that the supply of sample to the Sanitary Inspector under Section 14 of the Act did not constitute a sale, and therefore, the accused could not be convicted under Section 5(1)(d) read with Rules 24, 28, and 29.
Issues: Interpretation of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, specifically Section 5(1)(d) and Rules 24, 28, 29, and whether the accused could be convicted for selling adulterated butter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the supply of sample to the Sanitary Inspector did not amount to a sale, and therefore, the accused could not be convicted under the relevant provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal by the Public Prosecutor was dismissed, and the order of acquittal of the accused was upheld.
Lakshmana Rao, J.
1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against an appellate order of acquittal and the question for determination is whether the accused are guilty of the offence tinder Section 5(1)(d) read with Rules 24, 28 and 29 framed under Section 20(2) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act. The accused are the Secretary and an Accountant of the Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society, Ltd., and the undisputed facts are that on 22nd August, 1936, the Sanitary Inspector of the Saidapet Municipality demanded a sample of butter from the Saidapet branch of the Society under Section 14 of the Act. The Accountant gave the sample and received the value, and the butter was on test found to be adulterated. The accused were prosecuted under Section 5(1)(a) and (d) read with Rules 24, 28 and 29 framed under Section 20(2) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, and the trial Court convicted them under Section 5(1)(d) read with Rules 24, 28 and 29 of the rules framed under Section 20(2) for selling the butter to the Sanitary Inspector. The conviction was set aside by the appellate Court on the ground that in the case of a Society registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act there can in law be only a distribution of the articles among the members and no sale, but it is unnecessary to consider this question as on the facts themselves the order of acquittal is right. The supply of sample to the Sanitary Inspector under Section 14 of the Act is not a sale nor can the Secretary of the Society or the Accountant of the Saidapet Branch be said to offer the butter for sale. They cannot therefore be convicted under Section 5(1)(d) read with Rules 24, 28 and 29 framed under Section 20(2) of the Act, and the order of acquittal must stand. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.
